Chennai Court January 1902 Judgments
C. Srinivasan Vs. the King Emperor
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ68
1. The charge of cheating must fail inasmuch as there is no proof that the deception practised by they petitioner on the Registrar of the Madras University caused harm or damage to him or to the University which he represents. If the real S. Srinivasan had practised a similar deception for obtaining a duplicate certificate, it could not be argued that he would be guilty of cheating unless damage or harm was caused to the person deceived.2. There is also nothing to show that the petitioner acted dishonestly in obtaining the duplicate certificate, that is, that he had any intention of causing wrongful gain to himself or wrongful loss to the University. On the other hand, he paid three rupees in cash for the certificate, which certainly seems to be greatly in excess of its cost price.3. Then as to the charge of forgery, assuming that the petitioner fabricated the document B2, there is no evidence, for the reasons already stated, that he did so fraudulently or dishonestly and with intent t...
Tag this Judgment!King-emperor Vs. C. Srinivasan
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-28-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad726
1. The charge of cheating must fail inasmuch as there is no proof that the deception practised by the petitioner on the Registrar of the Madras University caused harm or damage to him or to the University which he represents. If the real S. Streenivasan had practised a similar deception for obtaining a duplicate certificate it could not be argued that he would be guilty of cheating unless damage or harm was caused to the person deceived.2. There is also nothing to show that the petitioner acted dishonestly in obtaining the duplicate certificate, that is, that he had any intention of causing wrongful gain to himself or wrongful loss to the University. On the other hand he paid three Rupees in cash for the certificate which certainly seems to be greatly in excess of its cost price. Then as to the charge of forgery,--assuming that the petitioner fabricated the document B-2, there is no evidence, for the reasons already stated, that he did so fraudulently or dishonestly and with intent to ...
Tag this Judgment!Alagappa Chetti Vs. Sarathambal, Minor, by Mother and Guardian Krishna ...
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ438
Moore, J.1. The order of the District Judge cannot be upheld. The petitioner was arrested on the 22nd January 1899, but was released under Section 336, Civil Procedure Code, on his furnishing security that he would within one month apply to be declared an insolvent. For reasons that need not be considered he did not; apply to a court having jurisdiction till the 6th May 1899, when he made the present application to the District Munsif of Madura who rejected it as out of time. On appeal his order was confirmed by the District Judge. It does not appear that there is any question as to a bar by limitation in a case of this sort.2. As the petitioner did not put in his application to be declared an insolvent within the prescribed time, he was liable to be committed to jail; and if this had been done, he would certainly have had to put in a fresh application under the third clause of paragraph (b) of the proviso to Section 336, Civil Procedure Code. He was not, however, so arrested, and it i...
Tag this Judgment!Alagappa Chetti Vs. Sabathambal and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-23-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad724
Moore, J.1. The order of the District Judge cannot be upheld, The petitioner was arrested on the 22nd January 1899 but was released under Section 336, Civil Procedure Code, on his furnishing security that he would within one month apply to be declared an insolvent. For reasons that need not be considered he did not apply to a court having jurisdiction till the 6th May 1899 when ha made the present application to the District Munsif of Madura, who rejected it as out of time. On appeal, his order was confirmed by the District Judge. It does not appear that there is any question as to a bar by limitation in a case of this sort. As the petitioner did not put in his application to be declared an insolvent within the prescribed time he was liable to be committed to jail and if this had been done he would certainly have had to put in a fresh application under the third clause of paragraph (b) of the proviso to Section 336, Civil Procedure Code. He was not, however, so arrested and it is there...
Tag this Judgment!MoidIn Kutty Vs. Kunhi Kutty Aly
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ411
1. Having regard to the terms of the order made in the claim proceedings and to the fact that it was not proved that the plaintiff actually received notice of the claim proceedings, we are of opinion that the plaintiff is not a party against whom an order has been made within the meaning of Section 283, Code of Civil Procedure, and that the order is not conclusive as against him. We do not think the decision of the Full Bench in Natietom P. Damodrem Nambudry v. Tayanbarry Parameshwaren Nambudry 4 M.H. C. 472 precludes us from adopting this view. Moreover, it seems doubtful whether, having regard to the observations made in the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Sardhari Lai v. Ambika Pernhad 15 I.A. 123 this decisionlis good law. The Bombay and Calcutta High Courts See, however Surnamoyi Desi v. Ashutosh Goswami I.L.R. 27 C. 714 have adopted a different view from that taken by the Full Bench in the case referred to. See Shivapa v. Dod Nagaya I.L.R. 11 B. 114 and Kedar Nath Ch...
Tag this Judgment!Ambalathilakath MoidIn Kutti Vs. Ambalathilakath Kunhi Kutti Ali
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-21-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad721
1. Having regard to the terms of the order made in the claim proceedings and to the fact that it was not proved that the plaintiff actually received notice of the claim proceedings, we are of opinion that the plaintiff is not a party against whom an order has been made within the meaning of Section 283, Code of Civil Procedure, and that the order is not conclusive as against him. We do not think the decision of the Full Bench Netietom Perengaryproin v. Tayanbarry Parameshwaren Nambudri 4 M.H.C.R. 472 precludes us from adopting this view, Moreover it seems doubtful whether, having regard to the observations made in the judgment of the Privy Council in Sardhari Lal v. Ambika Pershad 15 I.A. 123, this decision is good law. The Bombay and Calcutta High Courts have adopted a different view from that taken by the Full Bench in the case referred to Shivappa v. Dod Nagaya I.L.R. 11 Bom. 114 and Kedar Nath Chatterji v. Rathal Das Chatterji I.L.R. 15 Calc. 674. See, however, Surnamoyi Dasi v. As...
Tag this Judgment!Narayana Ayyar Vs. Venkataramana Ayyar and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-20-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad220
1. In our judgment the period of limitation for a suit for sale under the instrument id question in the present case is that prescribed by Article 147 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act.2. In Ramachandra Rayaguru v. Modhu Padhi I.L.R. 21 Mad. 326 Shephard, J., dealt with the case upon the supposition that the instrument then before the Court was a charge not amounting to a mortgage and held that Article 132, which relates to suits to enforce by judicial sale payment of money charged on immoveable property, applied.3. In the present case it is quite clear that the instrument is a mortgage. In the case referred to, Subrahmania Ayyar, J., was of opinion that the article applicable was Article 132, on the ground that the words 'by a mortgagee for foreclosure or sale in Article 147' referred only to a suit for foreclosure or sale in the alternative. We do not think this is the right construction of the article. For the reasons stated in the order of reference which we substantiall...
Tag this Judgment!Rajamannar and anr. Vs. Venkatakristnayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ183
1. Their Lordships stated the facts as given above and continued:To take the defendants' appeal first, it was contended on their behalf (1) that the Rs. 10,000 was not a legacy, but either a loan by plaintiff to the testator or a deposit repayable on demand, in either of which cases the suit was barred by limitation, (2) that as a fact the whole amount of the principal had been discharged and (3) that no interest' was stipulated for. The Subordinate Judge decided on the first point that the limitation bar for the recovery of the sum as a deposit was saved by acknowledgments, on the second point in favor of the defendants and on the third point that interest to run at 9 per cent, was intended by the parties.2. We are unable to agree with the Subordinate Judge on the 1st question, for, in our opinion, the bequest of Rs. 10,000 was clearly a legacy meant as a satisfaction of the indebtedness of the testator to the plaintiff for money (as he expresses it) 'kept with' him' by the plaintiff....
Tag this Judgment!Rajamannar and anr. Vs. Venkatakrishnayya and anr.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-15-1902
Reported in: (1902)ILR25Mad361
1. The plaintiff sues for the recovery of a legacy of Rs. 10,000 bequeathed to him by his brother Chinnam Venkata Gopalam with interest thereon, the first defendant being the son of the deceased testator, and defendants Nos. 2 and 3 the executors of the will.2. The will is dated the 27th April 1887, and the provision in it, under which plaintiff claims, runs as follows: 'My elder brother Ry. Venkatakrishnayya Garu's self acquisition to the extent of about Rs. 10,000 is kept with me. So, that money should be given to him.' There are several codicils to the will, the only one affecting the plaintiff being dated the 25th of July 1887 in which it is directed that the rupees that have to be given to him are to be paid immediately in cash. The testator died on the 14th September 1888, and this suit was brought on the 9th May 1899 which is within the twelve years period allowed by Article 123 of the second schedule to the Limitation Act, for a suit for a legacy. The plaintiff admitted the rec...
Tag this Judgment!Savarimuthu Pillai Vs. Alagiam Pillai and ors.
Court: Chennai
Decided on: Jan-10-1902
Reported in: (1902)12MLJ88
1. On the preliminary objection we agree with tin; ruling of the Calcutta High Courts Jantoo v. Raja Canto Dusn I.L.R. 8 C. 515 which does not appear to have been brought to the notice of the learned Judges who hoard Pydal Namhiar v. Kannun Nambiar 12 M.L.J. R. 87 in this Court, that Rs. 10 is the light fee.2. The Court fee payable on a memorandum of appeal (also plaint) in a matter arising under Section 77 of the Registration Act 111 of 1877 to enforce registration is a fixed fee of Rs. 10 under Article 17, Clause 12, Schedule IV of the Court Fees Act.3. [The remaining portion of the judgment is omitted as immaterial for the purposes of this report.]...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- 2
- Next ›
- Last »